^{page 247 note 1} Journal Beng. As. Soc. vol. vii. p. 908.Google ScholarThomas“s, Prinsep, vol. i. p. 262.Google Scholar

^{page 247 note 2} Beng. J. vol. vii. p. 348.Google ScholarThomas, vol. ii., p. 70.Google Scholar

^{page 248 note 1} Beng. J. vol. vii. p. 908, 966.Google ScholarThomas, vol. i. pp. 257, 263.Google Scholar

^{page 249 note 1} There are some variations in the orthography of the names—thus, the Tâviṣura of one is doubtless the Tâpiṣura of the other. Such uncertainty in the spelling of vernacular names is common in inscriptions.

^{page 250 note 1} See Table of Inscriptions in the Index of the Jour. of the Ben. A. S. p. 200.Google Scholar

^{page 250 note 2} There are some notices of the Châlukyas among Mr. Wathen's Inscriptions, published in vols. ii. iii. iv. and v. of the Journal; but these in all probability had come under the notice of Mr. Elliot before he published his memoir. See particularly vol. ii. p. 380, and vol. v. p. 343.

^{page 251 note 1} The word kubja properly signifies “crooked” or “hunch-backed.”

^{page 251 note 2} Dating from the first conquest of Râja Sinha, the whole period would be seven centuries; but there is some chronological obscurity about the earlier princes of the series which we hope to clear up hereafter.

^{page 252 note 1} Tod Ann. Rajasthan, where the Anhalwâra family is styled both Solanki and Châlukya, pp. 80 and 97.

^{page 252 note 2} Journ. R.A.S. vol. iv., p. 17;Google Scholar and Madras Journ. Lit. and Sc. vol. vii. p. 209.Google Scholar

^{page 252 note 3} The earliest inscription of the Kakatiyas that has been met in Vengideṣam, now the Northern Circars, bears date A.D. 1175, the latest 1336.

^{page 254 note 1} Some accounts make Yuddha Malla the son and successor of Tâḷapa, and expelled by Vikramâditya V.

^{page 255 note 1} It is not clear whether the sword was ever assumed by the true Châlukyas or only adopted by a succeeding dynasty.

^{page 256 note 1} Vol. v. 343.

^{page 256 note 2} Vol. iv. 38.

^{page 257 note 1} Vol. ii. p. 4.

^{page 259 note 1} Journ. iv. p. 8.

^{page 259 note 2} Journ. Bomb. R. A. S. ii p. 1.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 1} Journ. Bomb. R. A. S., iii. 205, 211.Google Scholar

^{page 260 note 2} Ibid. p. 206.

^{page 261 note 1} Journ. Bomb. R. A. S., i., 210, 220.Google Scholar

^{page 261 note 2} Journ. iv., 11.

^{page 261 note 3} Journ. Bomb. R. A. S. ii. 270; iv. 105.Google Scholar

^{page 263 note 1} Vol. vii. p. 908.

^{page 264 note 1} This is a curious blunder persistently repeated. The original is clearly Gurjjara, and so it is rendered in the Bengal transliteration.

^{page 267 note 1} Thomas's Prinsep, vol. i. p. 255.Google Scholar

^{page 267 note 2} Table of Inscriptions in Index to the Journ. of the As. Soc. of Bengal. This statement was based on the few passages which had been translated in vol. vii.

^{page 268 note 1} The plate is much abraded in these places, and the characters either obliterated or very indistinct.

^{page 268 note 2} Here there is a clearly written character which I cannot decipher.

^{page 268 note 3} Here the letter v has been supplied.

^{page 268 note 4} The text is very doubtful here. Sandhiya seems clear. The superscribed mark over the last letter may be anuswâra, although it is not written in the usual way. The following letter ra, which appears in the lithograph, is not fully warranted by the plate. The next two characters may be pṛithvi. Whatever may be the right reading, it is clear that the doubtful word consists of some name or descriptive title of the village granted.

^{page 270 note 1} The other grants have nirbhukta.

^{page 270 note 2} Here there is an upadhmânîya.

^{page 270 note 3} These anuswâras are clear in the plate, though not reproduced in the lithograph.

^{page 270 note 4} These words run on in the plate, but are written in rather larger letters.

^{page 270 note 5} The letters in the first line are much defaced, and the reading is consequently doubtful. Vijayapura, “the city of victory,” may be a proper name. A few doubtful words occur afterwards, but as they are in the eulogistic portion of the grant, they are of little or no importance.

^{page 271 note 1} Dharmmârtha-kâma.

^{page 271 note 2} The modern “Jumbosser.”

^{page 271 note 3} See Supplementary Note.

^{page 271 note 4} The word pattikâ, which I have rendered “share,” is not given in the dictionaries. Has it any connection with the paṭṭî of the joint-tenancy villages in the N. W. Provinces? Prof. Hall found the word padam used for share in another grant.—See Journ. Amer. Or. Soc. vol. vi. p. 546.Google Scholar

^{page 271 note 5} The word which is here and in other places written is evidently and is so written afterwards.

^{page 273 note 1} Both plates agree in writing this word janmâ, with the final long.

^{page 273 note 2} Here I have inserted x.

^{page 275 note 1} No. 3 reads

^{page 276 note 1} The words in brackets are omitted from No. 3.

^{page 276 note 2} Number 3 reads shashṭim.

^{page 277 note 1} Vagâha, a bath. The context would seem to imply some other meaning, about which the lexicons are silent.

^{page 277 note 2} Lâvaṇya. This word also signifies “beauty.”

^{page 277 note 3} Garuḍa.

^{page 277 note 4} Alluding to the juice which exudes from the elephant's temples when in rut.

^{page 277 note 5} This and the passages which follow are obscure, and are difficult to translate intelligibly.

^{page 278 note 1} In this passage the word payodhara seems to be used in the double sense of “a woman's breast” and “a cloud.”

^{page 278 note 2} Adhaḥ-kṛita, “turned down.”

^{page 278 note 3} Srî Lakshmî, or Fortune, is fabled to dwell in the lotus flower, especially in the red lotus which has thorns.

^{page 278 note 4} This last clause is doubtful. The word in the original is khasha, which is not to be found in the dictionaries. I have read it as khaṣa, “a mountainous country to the north of India.”

^{page 280 note 1} Pancka-mahâṣabda. Here I follow ProfHall, F. E., who has a learned note upon the phrase in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, vol. vi., p. 540.Google Scholar He was, however, confessedly doubtful and dissatisfied, and I cannot but share his doubts, though I have no better interpretation to propose. Ṣabda, “sound, word,” can hardly signify “title.” Mr. W. Elliot considers the phrase equivalent to the Naubat of the present day, that is, “a band of music.” (See supra, page 255.) I am inclined to believe it must mean a series of mystical words or invocations, such as cited by Prof. Hall in the note referred to.

^{page 280 note 2} This is clearly a descriptive term, not part of the name of the village; but its meaning is not discoverable.

^{page 280 note 3} See supplementary note at the end, upon the meanings of the technical terms employed to designate the rights conferred.

^{page 281 note 1} The modern Jambosir or Jumboseer.

^{page 282 note 1} Broach?

^{page 282 note 2} So I understand the passage “Ebhyaṣ chatuṣ-charaṇa-brâhmaṇebhyaṣ châturvidyâ-parikalpanâ pârvvam.” The word charaṇa evidently signifies in this place a school or sect of Vedic learning. The four schools specified are those of Âṣwalâyana for the Ṛig, Kaṇwa for the Vâjasaneyi or White Yajush, Kuthnmi for the Sâman, and Pippalâda for the Atharvan. The Sâman is further marked by the Brahmans being of the Chhândogya Bhâradwâja stock, i.e. of the stock of the Chhandoga or Sâma-veda Bharadwâja, as distinguished from the more celebrated Bharadwâja of the Ṛig-veda.

^{page 282 note 3} Bhoga-pati

^{page 282 note 4} Upa-pâtaka. This is found only in No. 2.

^{page 283 note 1} Journ. Beng. A. S. vol. v. p. 728.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 2} Ibid. 1861, p. 9.

^{page 283 note 3} Trans. A. S. vol i. p. 465.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 4} Journ. Bom. R. A. S. vol. iv. p. 105.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 5} Journ. Beng. A. S. vol. iv. p. 477.Google Scholar

^{page 283 note 6} Journ. Bom. R. A. S. vol. ii. p. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 1} Journ. Beng. R. A. S. 1861, p. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 284 note 2} In Grant No. 1 the word is written sodraga, but the nasal is too regularly inserted in other places to allow of this being deemed other than an error.

^{page 284 note 3} Trans. R. A. S. vol. i. p. 465.Google ScholarJournal, vol. v. p. 176.Google Scholar Grant No. 8.

^{page 284 note 4} Ibid. Grant No. 9. See also Journ. Amer. Or. Soc. vol. vi. p. 543.Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 1} Journ. Beng. A. S. vol. v. p. 477.Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 2} Journ. Bom. R. A. S. vol. ii. p. 371.Google Scholar The composition of this grant, as also the reproduction and transcription, all appear to be very faulty. The transcription gives bhûya, but the fac-simile may be read bhûma. There can be no doubt that bhûmi was intended.

^{page 285 note 3} Journ. Bom. R. A. S. vol. ii. p. 5.Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 4} Journ. Amer. Or. Soc. vol. vi. p. 541.Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 5} Journ. Beng. A. S. 1861, p. 9.Google Scholar

^{page 285 note 6} Ibid., vol. v. p. 728.

^{page 286 note 1} Grant No. 1. Vol. ii.